How to prove God exists.

[Freodin]

DP

 

[Pachomius]

For me babies are evidence of their parents' existence.

 

[Freodin]

For me babies are evidence of their parents' existence.

For me as well.

So babies are evidence of their parents' existence AND evidence for the existence of God.

Are parents God then?

 

[Pachomius]

What do you mean by DP?

 

[Pachomius]

Parents are not God, but evidence of ultimately the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

 

[Pachomius]

Does DP means for you Domestic Parents?

 

[Freodin]

What do you mean by DP?

Short for "double post". It can happen sometimes that you make the same post twice... either by a mistake you make or by a glitch in the forum's software. As you cannot delete posts, it is customary to replace the second post with "dp" to mark it is irrelevant.

 

[Pachomius]

Sorry for the typo, I mean do you indicate by DP Domestic Parents?

 

[Pachomius]

Thanks.

So, what do you say, are parents ultimately also evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

 

[Freodin]

Parents are not God, but evidence of ultimately the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

How?

Babies are evidence for parents, because we can make observations of a causal connections between babies and parents. We do not have such an observational connection between babies and God.

In fact, there are NO observations of babies without parents. Connected with other observations, for example about the temporal relation between these two, it seems likely that "parents" are somehow the cause of babies. Thus making God not the creator of babies.

On the other hand, the existence of babies without parents would be evidence that something different than parents are responsible for the existence of babies. This "something different" could be the God of your concept.

Do you have such observations?

[edited to fix typo: no observations of babies without parents]

 

[Pachomius]

Please give a concrete example of babies without parents.

 

[Freodin]

Thanks.

So, what do you say, are parents ultimately also evidence of God,

No.

...in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

We have already agreed on that concept, many times over. Do you get royalties every time you type it or do you have a quota to fullfil?

 

[Freodin]

Please give a concrete example of babies without parents.

You obviously didn't understand the point.

You would have to give a concrete example of babies without parents in order to show that parents are not necessarily the "creator" of babies.

 

[Pachomius]

Give a concrete example of babies without parents.

 

[Freodin]

Give a concrete example of babies without parents.

Are parents the creators of babies?

 

[Pachomius]

You say there are babies without parents, so give a concrete example of babies without parents.

 

[Freodin]

You say there are babies without parents, so give a concrete example of babies without parents.

I didn't say that. Read again.

 

[Pachomius]

You say:

"In fact, there are observations of babies without parents."

Give a factual actual concrete example of babies without parents.

 

[Freodin]

You say:

"In fact, there are observations of babies without parents."

Give a factual actual concrete example of babies without parents.

Ah, I see. Sorry, that was a typo. It should read "there are NO observations of babies without parents."

Which would be evidence for the claim that parents, and not God, are the creators of babies.

 

[Pachomius]

Start with observations, for you say:
"In fact, there are observations of babies without parents."